Press release – Panel for the Clarification of Certain Points of Law in Civil Matters in its session of 26 October 2020
High Court of Review and Justice
PRESS RELEASE
In its session of 26 October 2020, the High Court of Review and Justice – Panel for the Clarification of Certain Points of Law in Civil Matters, lawfully established in each of the cases, considered six requests for preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgments:
Judgment #61 in case #1908/1/2020
Denies as inadmissible the request from Court of Appeals Bucharest – Chamber VII for Labor Conflicts and Social Insurance, in case # 15798/3/2019, for a preliminary ruling in clarifying the following point of law:
What is the interpretation of Art. 425 in Law # 223/2007 on the Status of Professional Civil Aviation Navigating Personnel in Romania, as amended and supplemented, in the sense of establishing the meaning of the phrase “average annual inflation rate, a definitive indicator, known on the 1st of January every year when the update is calculated and communicated by the National Institute for Statistics,” namely is this the indicator that corresponds to the year previous to the one the update is calculated in, or is it the last known indicator on the 1st of January of the year when the update is calculated, as communicated by the National Institute for Statistics.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 26 October 2020.
Judgment #62 in case #2035/1/2020
Denies as inadmissible the request from Court of Appeals Bacău – Chamber I Civil Matters, in case # 4563/99/2018, for a preliminary ruling in clarifying the following point of law:
Should Art. 55 para. (4) letter e) and Art. 29615 letter e) in Law # 571/2003 of the Tax Code, as amended and supplemented, and also Art. 76 para. (4) letter f) and Art. 142 letter e) in Law # 227/2015 of the Tax Code, as amended and supplemented, be interpreted in the sense that the phrase “the price of medication” also includes the hypothesis of payment of the personal contribution, namely co-payment of the purchase of medication as approved by the credit manager for the specialist ancillary staff and the auxiliary personnel of courts of law and prosecutor’s offices, in service or retired, based on Art. 67 in Law # 567/2004 on the status of specialist ancillary staff of courts of law and prosecutor’s offices attached to them and of the personnel working for the National Institute for Forensic Examinations, as amended and supplemented, and in the conditions of Government Decision #762/2010 on the conditions for providing free-of-charge medical assistance, medication and prosthetics for certain categories of personnel in the judicial system, as amended and supplemented.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 26 October 2020.
Judgment #63 in case #2136/1/2020
Sustains the request from the Court of Appeals Braşov – Civil Chamber, in case # 3817/62/2018, for a preliminary ruling.
The interpretation and application of Art. 28 para. (1) in Law # 223/2015 on state military pension, as amended and supplemented, is that:
The calculation basis used to establish the amount of state military pension is the average of pre-tax monthly basic pay/salary received over 6 consecutive months, in the last 5 years of activity as a member of the military /police/special-status public servant, as updated by bringing to date every component element of the pre-tax monthly basic pay/salary received for the base position, established under salary laws applicable on the date pension rights are calculated, without a distinction being made in terms of whether this updated pre-tax amount is higher or lower than that of the pre-tax monthly basic pay/salary received in the period selected by the future retiree, which can also mean a lowering of the selected calculation basis insofar as on the date the pension rights are calculated the individual comes under the stipulations of Art. 38 para. (6) in Framework Law #153/2017 on Salaries for Personnel Paid from Public Funds, as amended and supplemented.
In interpreting Art. 60 in the same law, as it was amended by Emergency Government Order #59/2017 on amending and supplementing certain regulatory acts in the matter of service pensions, the court finds that:
The net state military pension, calculated as per Art. 3 letter m) in Law # 223/2015, after deduction of income tax as under applicable law, is capped at the level of the average net monthly military pay/salary corresponding to the pre-tax monthly military pay/salary contained in the pension calculation basis, as already updated as per Art. 28 para. (1), on the date of calculation of the pension rights.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 26 October 2020.
Judgment #64 in case #2236/1/2020
Sustains the request from the Court of Appeals Cluj – Chamber IV for Labor Conflicts and Social Insurance, in case # 2316/100/2019, for a preliminary ruling and consequently rules that:
In interpreting Art. 39 para. (6) corroborated with cu Art. 38 para. (1), para. (3) letter d), para. (41) and para. (8) in Framework Law #153/2017 on Salaries for Personnel Paid from Public Funds, as amended and supplemented, establishing the base salary for teaching staff in the national education system who were hired before entry into force of Framework Law #153/2017 is to be done, for the duration of the temporary application of this regulatory act, by using the seniority grade of 4 years stipulated in the Appendix to Government Decision #38/2017 for application of Art. 34 para. (3) in Government Emergency Order #57/2015 on Salaries for Personnel Paid from Public Funds in the year 2016 postponing certain deadlines, as well as certain tax and budget measures.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 26 October 2020.
Judgment #65 in case #1433/1/2020
Sustains the request from the Court of Appeals Bucharest – Chamber VIII for administrative and tax litigations, in case # 31418/3/2018 and consequently rules that:
In interpreting and applying the stipulations of Art. 8 and Art. 10 para. (3) in Government Emergency Order #90/2017 related to Art.13 para. (5) in Government Emergency Order nr.103/2013 and Art. IV para. (1) and (6) in Law # 79/2018, it is allowed to cumulate the increase by 75% of the calculation basis granted for activity performed by special-status public servants in the system of the penitentiary administration on days of weekly repose, legal holidays and other days declared as non-working days as under applicable regulations, with rights pertaining to supplemental work performed by the same public servants as overtime past normal working hours, only for hours effectively worked that exceed the normal working hours as under Art. 112 in the Labor Code.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 26 October 2020.
Judgment #66 in case #2135/1/2020
Denies as inadmissible the request from Tribunal Harghita – Civil Chamber, in case # 1232/234/2014, for a preliminary ruling in clarifying the following point of law:
What is the legal nature of the “plot plan,” is it an administrative/legal document of a nature to produce legal effects or is it a mere technical document that does not produce legal effects, as related to the stipulations of Art. 27 para. (1), (2) and (41) din Law of the Real Estate Fund #18/1991, as republished, amended and supplemented?
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 26 October 2020.
After the justification is written and the Judgment signed it shall be published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I.
OFFICE FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION AND RELATIONS